RPG Maker MZ/MV MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or what format the switch names are returned in (array, object, comma-separated string). It meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely efficient at 5 words, front-loaded with the action and target resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately conveys the basic operation but fails to specify the return structure (e.g., 'returns an array of switch name strings'). For a retrieval tool without output schema documentation, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about result parsing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond what the schema (empty object) already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('game switch names'), effectively distinguishing this from sibling 'set_switch_name' via the get/set contrast and from 'get_variables' by specifying 'switch' rather than 'variable'. However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings or clarifying scope (e.g., 'all' implies no filtering, which is useful but could be explicit).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_switch_name' or 'get_variables', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to know switch names before setting them). The agent must infer usage from the naming contrast alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.